Anyone else think Civ 7 way overhyped and going wrong way?

[Green1]

Spicy take, but I think the Civ series used to be the gold standard for 4x Strategy but I think has fallen off.


It's "still" Civ, but compared to what others are doing it seems overly simplistic and dumbed down.

For instance, take medieval era Civ. Yes, Civ can do that era. But the transition is jarring with Civ 7.

Consider how Paradox's Crusader Kings do it. Yeah, tech advances via culture but it's gradual. And there's TONs more depth and stuff going on with CK3 without going off on a 6 paragraph essay on this.

Now Paradox has it's own issues with 50 bajillion DLCs where whole thing would be like a couple of hundred bucks in some cases. But even base game seems to have more to it than Civ 7.

[Ordnael]

Overhyped by both the developers and the community? Certainly.
I still remember the feeling while viewing the presentation video a year ago and marvelling at the vistas from the map while listening to Gwendoline's beautiful narration.

Going the wrong way? Debatable. I participate in the CFC forums and while I have read bad things about the gameplay, some folks are still enjoying. I haven't bought it yet, but the things people are pointing out as wrong make sense to me.

The real question is why release a game with such a troubled GUI and bugs? So many patches and fixes that were launched almost weekly and then monthly after half a year paint some very sloppy, rushed, unfinished strokes in Civ VII's canvas.

I don't know if CIV VI was so bad at launch. But I got my CIV VI copy for my Nintendo Switch somewhere in 2021, it came some extras like the Polish Civ but it was vanilla ruleset and it worked well for a game not designed with this console in mind.

The turns from industrial era on are still are a slog even with the latest patches and full dlc and extras I acquired last year but it works, but the game is a marvel to play from antiquity to medieval era and I appreciate not having the rug pulled underneath my feat with Civ VII "age transitions".

I find it hilarious that people critique CIV VI's art direction as being too unrealistic and cartoonish (I love it btw), are these people looking at the leaders from Civ VII!? Talk about an uncanny valley here!

[Green1]

The bugs are the "live service" game stuff we got nowadays. Though in fairness, it's bad but not necessarily death of game time if handled right.

That rug pull sucks. I understand not wanting knights fighting b2 bombers but it should be smoother. I hate forced shifts. I think that was one of many things that killed Spore. Now it's 3 wargames. Not one and might not do all well.

A BETTER way is kind of like CK3. The leaders should exist on the field and if you are playing that leader, that leader is a unit and can produce kids and have successors based on the society it is. It was not just "adapting monarchy" it was working around tribal structure to be a monarch. and all the internal politics of the kingdom. Not just does x,,y,x opens x,y,z path. Or -boom- you are a monarchy. Forget about that tribe you were trying to punish over there, everything is different now for no apparent reason and names are changed.